One Nation has unveiled a policy that would allow Australians paying rent or a mortgage to redirect a portion of their compulsory superannuation contributions directly into their bank accounts — but finance experts and industry bodies warn the short-term cash boost could leave workers tens of thousands of dollars worse off when they retire.
Under the proposal, workers would be able to divert 3 per cent of their superannuation contributions as take-home pay for up to three years. Employers would continue contributing the current mandatory rate of 12 per cent, but only 9 per cent would be invested in a super fund — with the remaining 3 per cent paid out to the employee. Those payments would be taxed at the concessional rate of 15 per cent, rather than at the individual's personal income tax rate.
Party leader Pauline Hanson framed the policy as a cost-of-living lifeline, arguing it would give Australian households genuine financial "breathing room" to cover essentials such as groceries, power bills and family expenses.
What workers would receive — and what they would give up
According to Hanson, a full-time worker earning around $90,500 a year would receive approximately $2,300 extra annually after tax — equivalent to $44 a week. A working couple with a combined income of $168,000 could receive around $4,300 a year, or $82 a week, back into their household budget.
"That's a real boost to help you pay the rent or the mortgage," Hanson said.
One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce also defended the plan, arguing that losing a home now would have a far greater long-term financial impact than a reduction in superannuation contributions. "If I lose my house now, I'm going to be hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars out," Joyce said. He emphasised that the policy would not touch existing super balances — only future contributions would be affected.
For Australians wanting to understand the existing rules around accessing super early, our earlier explainer on temporary early release of superannuation covers the current framework in detail.
Experts warn of a $25,000 hit to retirement savings
Despite the party's pitch, the plan has drawn sharp criticism from financial academics and the superannuation industry, who say the long-term costs far outweigh the short-term gain.
Mardy Chiah, an associate professor of finance at the University of Newcastle's School of Business, calculated that opting into the scheme would result in a loss of approximately $23,000 to $24,000 in invested retirement income for a worker on $90,000 a year.
"If you're earning an average $90,000 salary, the 3 per cent would give you an extra $2,300 a year — which after three years would be $6,900," Chiah explained. "This policy essentially gives households more financial breathing room today in exchange for much less money invested for their retirement. The loss can be quite substantial. You're taking money away from your future self."
Analysis from the Super Members Council painted an even starker picture. The industry body estimated that a 30-year-old full-time worker earning $90,500 who opts into the scheme would be $25,000 worse off in retirement superannuation by the time they reach 67. More than $18,000 of that shortfall would stem from lost compounding interest alone.
Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert said the scheme would not only damage individual retirement outcomes but could also drive up inflation and interest rates — potentially worsening the very cost-of-living pressures it purports to address. "There are smarter and better ways to help Australians struggling with housing costs ... none of them involve telling Australians to raid their super and their futures," Schubert said.
Taxpayer burden and broader economic concerns
Professor Chiah also raised concerns about what the policy could mean for public finances. If more Australians retire with diminished super balances, he argued, greater numbers would be forced to rely on the age pension — meaning future taxpayers would effectively be subsidising the policy's cost.
"More people would likely have to access the age pension for their retirement, which means future taxpayers would be funding this policy," he said. Chiah stressed that preserving a retirement fund should be considered a "last resort" matter, warning that reducing the 12 per cent contribution rate to 9 per cent could compromise many Australians' ability to "retire comfortably."
Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek was also critical, contrasting the One Nation approach with the government's record on wages. "We support higher wages and better super when you retire. We've seen minimum wages increase by more than $12,000 since we came to government," she said, adding: "We know that if you raid your super now, you'll be thousands of dollars worse off in retirement."
The debate over the One Nation proposal reflects broader tensions in Australian society around housing affordability and financial security — issues that, as our analysis of household debt and house prices fuelling the rise of One Nation in Australia has explored, have helped drive the party's growing electoral appeal.
What happens next
The policy has not yet progressed to legislation, and with Labor firmly opposed, its path forward in the current parliament remains uncertain. Critics say the proposal underscores a tension at the heart of Australia's retirement savings system: the temptation to treat superannuation as an emergency buffer, versus the long-term consequences of doing so. For now, the debate over whether a $44-a-week gain today is worth a potential $25,000 loss in retirement looks set to continue.
